The US would benefit from a Universal Healthcare System.
All stages have been completed. The voting points distribution and the result are presented below.
With 2 votes and 5 points ahead, the winner is ...
- Publication date
- Last update date
- Time for argument
- Two weeks
- Voting system
- Open voting
- Voting period
- One month
- Point system
- Four points
- Rating mode
- Characters per argument
-I didn't know what category this fit better as but selected politics as the debate I see on it is largely by politicians not actual health professionals-
The US is often criticised (and mocked) for not having a Universal Healthcare system.
Pro will therefore argue that a Single Payer Universal Healthcare system is preferable and, despite potential fears, practicable for the US to implement.
Con will argue the other side, asserting that the Status quo of non-universal private healthcare is instead preferable.
- Please provide evidence that nearly all Americans will support this new single-payer system, lest you want to force an unwilling population into paying a stiff price to get a dubious result.
- Please provide evidence that America has a high enough level of wealth, organization and government efficiency to actually implement this system, lest you will let significant percentages of GDP slip right into the hand of bureaucrats while not providing adequate healthcare as promised.
- Please provide evidence that the single-payer system can function properly in the US, and that it can solve the problems PRO described.
Health care costs continue to increase faster than the economy, and as interest rates rise. By 2030, the debt is headed toward 118%. While the recent increases in debt seem quite manageable, the federal debt cannot grow faster than the economy indefinitely [brookings.edu]
For years, public trust in the federal government has hovered at near-record lows. That remains the case today, as the United States struggles with a pandemic and economic recession. Just 20% of U.S. adults say they trust the government in Washington to “do the right thing” just about always or most of the time. [pewresearch]
Ban anti-competitive practices. For example, hospitals frequently write contracts that prevent insurers from telling patients about less expensive or higher quality competitors. Similarly, dominant insurers insist that contracting hospitals not offer their services to other payers at lower prices. These sorts of practices should be prosecuted or outlawed.Ensure that dynamic new competitors can enter the market. New companies can inject much-needed innovation into healthcare--for example, through the use of newer technologies like tele-medicine—and also keep prices lower and quality higher for everyone.Our package contains many more detailed proposals, some of which have already been embraced by federal and state regulators.[Forbes]
>Reported Vote: TheUnderdog // Mod action: Not Removed
>Voting Policy: info.debateart.com/terms-of-service/voting-policy
>Points Awarded: conduct to con
>Reason for Decision: See Votes Tab.
>Reason for Mod Action:
Due to only being two rounds, the single forfeiture makes this debate fall into the full forfeiture category.
Any unexcused forfeited round merits an automatic conduct loss, but arguments must still be voted on or justified as a tie. Repeated forfeitures waives the need to consider arguments (you still may, but by the choice of one side to miss at least 40% of the debate, the requirement ceases. And yes, this does apply to Choose Winner, which otherwise would not allow conduct to be the sole determinant).
Should either side forfeit every round or every round after their initial arguments (waiving is not an argument), the debate is considered a Full Forfeiture, and any majority votes against the absent side are not moderated (a vote may still be cast in their favor of the absentee, but is eligible for moderation to verify that it is justified via the normal voting standards).
This was slightly worse than a single round debate, due to pro actively dropping all of con's arguments in R2 via forfeiture.
That said, pro opens with some statements to the effect that the USA's current system is criminal, and kills poor people. It's a good opening.
Con counters with infeasibility due to limited resources and a bad cultural fit stemming from politicians, and points out similar desired benefits could be more easily attained with better regulation (which again, pro made the decision to drop).